[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/3] drm/i915: pass intel_crtc as argument for intel_enable_pipe

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-02-11 15:09 GMT-02:00 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com>:
>> 2014-02-11 13:44 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2014-02-10 15:23 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:17:03PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:51:09PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>>>>>> > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > We want to remove those 3 boolean arguments. This is the first step.
>>>>>> > The "pipe" passed as the argument is always intel_crtc->pipe.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Also adjust the function documentation.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I've pulled in the entire series, but a bunch of things changed so had
>>>>> to resolve some (minor) conflicts. Please double-check that I didn't botch
>>>>> things up too badly.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to apply patch 2, and this is probably the reason why every
>>>> subsequent patch gave you a conflict.
>>>
>>> The conflicts where actually with one of Ville's patches to move the
>>> plane enabling around. I've fixed those up but apparently then missed
>>> the other conflict hidden underneath those.
>>>
>>>> You also applied patch 3 twice: once for Ironlake and once for
>>>> Haswell. You shouldn't change the Ironlake function.
>>>>
>>>> Do you plan to rebase or do I need to submit patches on top?
>>>
>>> I've applied the missing patched and dropped the ironlake patch of the
>>> double-merged one. So if the new tree looks ok no need to resend
>>> anything.
>
> Doesn't look ok yet.

Oh dear ... I've tried again. Not sure whether I should have though :(
-Daniel

> So previously I had "[PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after
> enabling pipe on HSW", which removes a wait_for_vblank on HSW.
>
> Then on "[PATCH 7/8] drm/i915: remove wait_for_vblank argument form
> intel_enable_pipe" we just change the function parameters without
> changing the function behavior.
>
> With this, if we bisect something to patch 2 we know the problem is
> that we stopped waiting for a vblank, and if we bisect to patch 7 we
> know the problem is something else.
>
> But since you just skipped patch 2, patch 7 is now more than just a
> coding style change: it actually does what patch 2 was supposed to do.
> So in a way, we can say patch 2 is not really necessary, but it was
> written weeks before patch 7, and patch 7 should be just a result of
> the review comments.
>
> And the version of "drm/i915: don't wait for vblank after enabling
> pipe on HSW" which you just committed as a last patch instead of
> second patch (the one that changes the argument to
> intel_crtc_update_cursor) is just plain wrong. That needs to be
> reverted. So either we add the original patch 2 at the right place, or
> we completely discard it...
>
> I know it's common to change the patch ordering when applying to our
> trees, but it can be quite dangerous...
>
> Thanks,
> Paulo
>
>>>
>>>> IMHO if a series starts getting messy to apply, I think you should
>>>> probably just ask the author to rebase and resend the final stuff.
>>>> Maybe with this we would be able to reduce the amount of bad merges,
>>>> which is becoming a very common problem, at least for my patches.
>>>
>>> The problem is that small conflicts are really common, both because I
>>> want people to submit against drm-intel-nightly (so that I can do the
>>> backmerging and branch shuffling correctly) and because of our
>>> development speed. I don't think me asking for rebases in all these
>>> cases is the better option. I tend to poke people to double-check when
>>> I screw things up, but I guess it's just been bad luck that recently
>>> the conflict fallout has always hit your patches :(
>>>
>>> Cheers, Daniel
>>> --
>>> Daniel Vetter
>>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>>> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulo Zanoni
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Zanoni



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch